document_title: Mexico–United States border

question_text: the country of shares a border with california

question_tokens: the country of shares a border with california

text: Mexico–United States border

text: Geography[edit]

text: Border region[edit]

text: Along this border are 23 U.S. counties and 39 Mexican municipalities, as well as a dramatic population increase.[further explanation needed] The main factors contributing to population rise are a significant increase in migrations, increase in the number of employment opportunities along the border region in Mexico, and the increase in the number of people illegally crossing the border into the United States in order to find better jobs and living standards. This border also plays a significant role in economic development on both sides and has negative and positive impacts on economic aspects when there is a change in populations or policies. This border also serves as the hub for trade and the exchange of goods. Mutual trade and exchange of goods make both countries depend on each other. Therefore, if one country, for example, faces economic issues, the other will also be affected by a decrease in employment opportunities. Although they may be mutually dependent on trade and economic development, both countries operate on distinct sets on governance, legal, economic, and social systems. This border defines the sovereignty of both countries.

text: Following the Boundary Treaty of 1970 between Mexico and the United States that settled all the pending boundary disputes and uncertainties related to the Rio Grande (Río Bravo del Norte) border, the national continental border extends 1,954 miles (3,145 km), excluding the maritime boundaries of 18 miles (29 km) in the Pacific Ocean and 12 miles (19 km) in the Gulf of Mexico.[6][7]

text: According to the International Boundary and Water Commission,[8] this continental border follows the middle of the Rio Grande—according to the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo between the two nations, "along the deepest channel" (also known as the thalweg)—from its mouth on the Gulf of Mexico a distance of 1,255 miles (2,020 km) to a point just upstream of El Paso and Ciudad Juárez.[9] It then follows an alignment westward overland and it is marked by monuments for a distance of 534 miles (859 km) to the Colorado River, when it reaches its highest elevation at the intersection with the Continental Divide. It then follows the middle of that river toward the north with a distance of 24 miles (39 km), and ultimately follows an alignment overland toward the west and marked by monuments with a distance of 141 miles (227 km) to the Pacific Ocean.

text: Per the La Paz Agreement,[10] the official "border area" (sometimes called border region[11]) extends "100 kilometers [62.5 miles] on either side of the inland and maritime boundaries" from the Gulf of Mexico west into the Pacific Ocean. There is also a 100-mile Border Zone.

text: The region is characterized by deserts, rugged hills, abundant sunshine, and two major rivers—the Colorado and the Rio Grande (Río Bravo del Norte)—which provide life-giving water to the largely arid but fertile lands along the rivers in both countries.

text: The Rio Grande frequently meanders along the Texas-Mexico border. As a result, the United States and Mexico have a treaty by which the Rio Grande is maintained as the border, with new cut-offs and islands being transferred to the other nation as necessary.

text:
Border Patrol patrolling the Rio Grande in an airboat in Laredo, Texas

The start of the border fence in the state of New Mexico—just west of El Paso, Texas

U.S. Border Patrol helicopter along El Camino del Diablo, Arizona–Sonora border, 2004

Border between Nogales, Arizona, on the left, and Nogales, Sonora, on the right

On the left: Nogales, Arizona; on the right, Nogales, Sonora

Beach in Tijuana at the border

text: Border states[edit]

text: The U.S. states along the border, from west to east, are California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. The Mexican states along the border are Baja California, Sonora, Chihuahua, Coahuila, Nuevo León, and Tamaulipas.

text: Among the U.S. states, Texas has the longest stretch of the border with Mexico, while California has the shortest. Among the states in Mexico, Chihuahua has the longest border with the United States, while Nuevo León has the shortest.

text: Texas borders four Mexican states—Tamaulipas, Nuevo León, Coahuila, and Chihuahua—the most of any U.S. states. New Mexico and Arizona each borders two Mexican states (Chihuahua and Sonora; Sonora and Baja California, respectively). California borders only Baja California.

text: Three Mexican states border two U.S. states each: Baja California borders California and Arizona; Sonora borders Arizona and New Mexico; and Chihuahua borders New Mexico and Texas. Tamaulipas, Nuevo León, and Coahuila each borders only one U.S. state: Texas.

text: Border crossing checkpoints[edit]

text: The border separating Mexico and the United States is the most frequently crossed international boundary in the world,[3][1][4] with approximately 350 million legal crossings taking place annually.[1][2][12]

text: There are 48 U.S.–Mexico border crossings, with 330 ports of entry. At these points of entry, people trying to get into the U.S. are required to open their bags for inspection.[13] Border crossings take place by roads, pedestrian walkways, railroads and ferries. From west to east, below is a list of the border city "twinnings"; cross-border municipalities connected by one or more legal border crossings.

text:
San Diego, California (San Ysidro) – Tijuana, Baja California (San Diego–Tijuana Metro)
Cross Border Xpress, Otay Mesa, California – Tijuana International Airport, Baja California
Otay Mesa, California – Tijuana, Baja California
Tecate, California – Tecate, Baja California
Calexico, California – Mexicali, Baja California
Andrade, California – Los Algodones, Baja California
San Luis, Arizona – San Luis Río Colorado, Sonora
Lukeville, Arizona – Sonoyta, Sonora
Sasabe, Arizona – Altar, Sonora
Nogales, Arizona – Nogales, Sonora
Naco, Arizona – Naco, Sonora
Douglas, Arizona – Agua Prieta, Sonora
Antelope Wells, New Mexico – El Berrendo, Chihuahua
Columbus, New Mexico – Palomas, Chihuahua
Santa Teresa, New Mexico – San Jerónimo, Chihuahua
El Paso, Texas – Ciudad Juárez, Chihuahua (El Paso-Juarez)
Fabens, Texas – Práxedis G. Guerrero, Chihuahua municipality
Fort Hancock, Texas – El Porvenir, Chihuahua
Presidio, Texas – Ojinaga, Chihuahua
Heath Canyon, Texas – La Linda, Coahuila (closed)
Del Rio, Texas – Ciudad Acuña, Coahuila
Eagle Pass, Texas – Piedras Negras, Coahuila
Laredo, Texas – Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas
Laredo, Texas – Colombia, Nuevo León
Falcon Heights, Texas – Presa Falcón, Tamaulipas
Roma, Texas – Ciudad Miguel Alemán, Tamaulipas
Rio Grande City, Texas – Ciudad Camargo, Tamaulipas
Los Ebanos, Texas – Gustavo Díaz Ordaz, Tamaulipas
Mission, Texas – Reynosa, Tamaulipas
Hidalgo, Texas – Reynosa, Tamaulipas
Pharr, Texas – Reynosa, Tamaulipas
Donna, Texas – Rio Bravo, Tamaulipas
Progreso, Texas – Nuevo Progreso, Tamaulipas
Los Indios, Texas – Matamoros, Tamaulipas
Brownsville, Texas – Matamoros, Tamaulipas

text: The total population of the borderlands—defined as those counties and municipios lining the border on either side—stands at some 12 million people.

text: History[edit]

text: In the mid-16th century, with the discovery of silver, settlers from a various countries and backgrounds began to arrive in the area. This period of sparse settlement included colonizers from different backgrounds. A strong feeling of manifest destiny had arose and began allaying internal political divisions with a sense of inevitable expansion. For example, it was not until after the Mexican–American War and the fulfillment of Manifest Destiny that the Civil War began in the United States, its most prominent generals on both sides having fought together against Mexico just years earlier. The reason the two countries went to war was that both Mexico and the US wanted Texas and California. The United States wanted Texas for its agricultural production, especially cotton, while California was important due to its direct contact with the Pacific. The area was technically part of the Kingdom of New Spain, but due to the lack of population and the diverse citizenry it had, it did not seem to belong to any country. This period lasted until the early 19th century, at which point the United States bought the lands known as the Louisiana Purchase from France and began to expand steadily (militarily) westward in its pursuit of Manifest Destiny.[14]

text: The border itself was not clearly defined and remained so until the Mexican colony became independent from Spain and entered a period of political instability. Mexico attempted to create a buffer zone at the border that would prevent possible invasion from the North. The Mexican government encouraged thousands of their own citizens to settle in the region that is now known as Texas and even offered inexpensive land to settlers from the United States in exchange for populating the area. The influx of people did not provide the defense that Mexico had hoped for and instead Texas declared its independence in 1836, which lasted until 1845 when the U.S. annexed it.

text: The constant conflicts in the Texas region in the mid-19th century eventually led to the Mexican–American War, which began in 1846 and ended in 1848 with the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. In the terms of the peace treaty, Mexico lost more than 960,000 square miles (2,500,000 km2) of land, 55%[15] of its territory, including what is today California, Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, Nevada and parts of Colorado, Wyoming, Kansas, and Oklahoma. In addition, all disputes over Texas and the disputed territory between Rio Grande and Rio Nueces were abandoned. Five years later the Gadsden Purchase completed the creation of the current United States–Mexico border. The purchase was initially to accommodate a planned railway right-of-way. These purchases left approximately 300,000 people living in the once disputed lands, many of whom were Mexican nationals. Following the establishment of the current border a number of towns sprang up along this boundary and many of the Mexican citizens were given free land in the northern regions of Mexico in exchange for returning and repopulating the area.[16]

text: The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and another treaty in 1884 were the agreements originally responsible for the settlement of the international border, both of which specified that the middle of Rio Grande was the border—irrespective of any alterations in the channels or banks. The Rio Grande shifted south between 1852 and 1868, with the most radical shift in the river occurring after a flood in 1864. By 1873 the moving river-center border had cut off approximately 600 acres (2.4 km2) of Mexican territory in the El Paso-Juarez area, in effect transferring the land to the United States. By a treaty negotiated in 1963, Mexico regained most of this land in what became known as the Chamizal dispute and transferred 264 acres (1.07 km2) in return to the United States. Border treaties are jointly administered by the International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC), which was established in 1889 to maintain the border, allocate river waters between the two nations, and provide for flood control and water sanitation. Once viewed as a model of international cooperation, in recent decades the IBWC has been heavily criticized as an institutional anachronism, by-passed by modern social, environmental and political issues.[7]

text: The economic development of the border region on the Mexican side of the border depended largely on its proximity to the United States, due to its remoteness from commercial centers in Mexico. Undocumented labor contributes $395 billion to the economy every year. If undocumented labor in the United States was largely Hispanic, it would have the same sized national economy as Sweden and rank ahead of countries such as Switzerland, Austria and Singapore and be bigger, in terms of GDP. Immigration reform has been a huge theme in U.S. politics, in recent years. While the U.S. is in favor of immigration, the increase in undocumented immigration has given border-crossing a negative image. There are around 11.5 million undocumented workers in the U.S. today, and 87% of undocumented immigrants have been living in the U.S. for more than 7 years.[17] Basic rules of macroeconomics indicate that as long as there are better opportunities existing in the U.S., immigration and the number of undocumented immigrants will continue to rise. Local economies that develop on the Mexican side capitalize not only on available skills but also on available, usually discarded, materials. Small businesses trade in clothes that are purchased by the pound and cardboard from the United States. Some items, like the used tires found everywhere along the border, are made into certain items that support local economies and define a border.[18]

text: During the years of Mexican President Porfirio Díaz, between 1876 and 1910, the border communities boomed, due mostly to close ties to the United States, and the Mexican government's support for financial investments from the United States.[19] Railroads were built that connected the northern Mexican states more to the United States than to Mexico and the population grew tremendously. The mining industry also developed, as did the United States’ control of it. By the early 20th century companies from the United States controlled 81% of the mining industry and had invested five hundred million dollars in the Mexican economy overall, twenty-five percent of it in the border regions.[20]

text: The Mexican Revolution, caused at least partially by animosity toward foreign ownership of Mexican properties, began in 1910. The Revolution increased the political instability in Mexico, but did not significantly slow United States investment. It did reduce economic development within Mexico, however, and the border regions reflected this. As the infrastructure of communities on the United States side continued to improve, the Mexican side began to fall behind in the construction and maintenance of important transportation networks and systems necessary to municipal development.[20]

text: Security[edit]

text: Background[edit]

text: Data from the United States Border Patrol Agency's (USBP) 2010 annual report shows that among the total number of illegal border crossings from various countries into the United States, 90 percent were from Mexico alone. In addition, there are more than 6 million undocumented Mexican nationals residing in the United States.[21] The border, with its 1,951 miles (3,140 km) in length, has a very high rate of legal and illegal migrant crossings every year. With such a high rate of people crossing annually to the United States, the country has invested in several distinct security measures. The U.S. Border Patrol is perhaps the most important security measure. In 2010, due to insecurity and instability at the southern border of the U.S. President Barack Obama signed an appropriation bill, which gave the Customs and Border Protection, specifically the Border Patrol, 600 million dollars to implement and improve security. The U.S. government has invested many millions of dollars on border security, although this has not stopped illegal immigrants from entering the United States.[22]

text: Border enforcement[edit]

text: While the Border Patrol has changed a lot since its inception in 1924, its primary mission remains unchanged: to detect and prevent the illegal entry of aliens into the United States. Together with other law enforcement officers, the Border Patrol helps maintain borders that work - facilitating the flow of legal immigration and goods while preventing the illegal trafficking of people and contraband. In 2012, Border Patrol agents made over 364,000 arrests of people illegally entering the country. Considerable success has been achieved in restoring integrity and safety to the Southwest border, by putting in place a border-control strategy. These include Operation Gatekeeper in San Diego, CA, Operation Hold the Line in El Paso, TX, Operation Rio Grande in McAllen, TX, Operation Safeguard in Tucson, AZ, and the Arizona Border Control Initiative (ABCI) along the Arizona border.[17][18][23] The border has the highest number of registered legal crossings of any land border in the world.[3] Over five million cars and trucks travel through the border annually.[24]

text: According to Vulliamy, one in five Mexican nationals will visit or work in the United States at one point in their lifetime.[24] As of 2010, the border is guarded by more than twenty thousand Border Patrol agents, more than at any time in its history.[25] However, they only have "effective control" of less than 700 miles (1,100 km) of the 1,954 miles (3,145 km) of total border,[26] with an ability to actually prevent or stop illegal entries along 129 miles (208 km) of that border.[27] The border is paralleled by United States Border Patrol Interior Checkpoints on major roads generally between 25 and 75 miles (40 and 121 km) from the U.S. side of the border, and garitas generally within 50 km of the border on the Mexican side.[28][29][30]

text: There are an estimated half a million illegal entries into the United States each year.[31] Border Patrol activity is concentrated around border cities such as San Diego and El Paso which have extensive border fencing. This means that the flow of illegal aliens is diverted into rural mountainous and desert areas, leading to several hundred migrant deaths along the Mexico–U.S. border of those attempting to cross into the United States from Mexico illegally and vice versa.[31]

text: The Secure Fence Act of 2006 was passed providing for the construction of 700 miles (1,100 km) of high-security fencing. Attempts to complete the construction of the Mexico–United States barrier have been challenged by the Mexican government and various U.S.–based organizations.

text: In January 2013, the Government Accountability Office released a report stating that the United States Border Patrol only intercepted sixty-one percent of individuals illegally crossing the border in 2011, which translated to 208,813 individuals not apprehended.[32] 85,827 of the 208,813 would go on to illegally enter the United States, while the rest returned to Mexico and other Central American countries.[32] The report also showed that the number of illegal border crossings has dropped.[32]

text: Statistics from the United States Border Patrol agency on apprehensions in the last 10 years in the border region show that 91 percent of the apprehensions made were illegal border crossings. Similarly, the U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) statistics show that 90 percent of the people apprehended along the border were from Mexico. The number of apprehensions along the border with Mexico has dramatically declined from 2001 to 2010 as the United States government increased the number border patrol agents and other facilities along the southwest sectors of the border. According to the Department of Homeland Security, there were about 10,000 agents operating along the border areas in 2004 which was increased to 20,500 agents in 2010. The Department of Homeland Security has also installed new technological equipment at the border including car and air surveillance, surveillance cameras, thermal imaging systems, inspection equipment, and so forth. Illegal border crossing is not the sole cause of illegal immigration to the United States, there are also people from various countries legally entering the United States and overstaying beyond their visa status who are also considered illegal immigrants. In 2010, there were approximately 11 million immigrants living the United States that were not authorized. Of the 11 million, 6.1 million people were from Mexico which accounted for 55 percent of the total unauthorized immigrants.

text: Border incursions[edit]

text: According to the U.S. Border Patrol, in the fiscal year of 2006, there were twenty-nine confirmed border incursions by Mexican government officials, of which seventeen were by armed individuals. Since 1996 there have been 253 incursions by Mexican government officials.[33][34][35] In 2014 the U.S. Department of Homeland Security informed California Representative Duncan D. Hunter that since 2004, there have been 300 documented border incursions, which resulted in 131 individuals being detained.[36]

text: The Washington Times has reported that on Sunday, August 3, 2008, Mexican military personnel who crossed into Arizona from Mexico encountered a U.S. Border Patrol agent, whom they held at gunpoint. The soldiers later returned to Mexico, as backup Border Patrol agents came to investigate.[37]

text: Disagreements over need for more resources[edit]

text: Proponents of greater spending on the border argue that continuing the buildup is necessary due to increased violence and drug trafficking[when?] from Mexico spilling into the United States.[38] However, critics such as the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA) have argued that the diminishing number of border crossings can only be partially attributed to U.S. security measures. Unintentional factors, such as a weakened U.S. economy in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis and increased violence in northern Mexico have made attempting illegal border crossings more risky and less rewarding.[39]

text: In context of Trump administration[edit]

text: In 2016, Donald Trump, then the Republican presidential nominee in the then forthcoming U.S. election repeatedly stated that he wanted to build a wall along the border, for the purpose of immigration control. He declared that Mexico would be forced to pay for the entire wall.[40][41] Following his Inauguration on January 20, 2017, on January 25 President Trump signed Executive Order 13767 to enable the building of the wall.[42] Shortly afterwards, the Mexican President stated that Mexico will not pay for the wall.[43] Trump had planned to meet Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto on January 27 in Washington, D.C. to discuss topics including border security. The meeting was cancelled by Peña Nieto, and shortly after, Trump announced that he intended to impose a 20% tariff on Mexican goods to effectively pay for the wall.[44]

text: As of the end of 2017, Mexico had not entered into any agreement to pay for any amount of the wall, and no new tariffs on Mexican goods had been considered by the U.S. Congress.[45] Also the U.S. Congress had not appropriated funding for a wall, and no further wall construction has started beyond what was already planned during the Obama administration.[45]

text: On September 20, 2017, California Attorney General Becerra filed a lawsuit alleging that the Trump administration has overstepped its powers in expediting construction of a border wall.[46][47]

text: Proposed wall[edit]

text: Some work on building a wall prototype was started. According to United States Customs and Border Protection agency, four major construction companies will bid for the contract. These companies will first produce prototypes of the wall within a month prior to receiving a full contract. The cost of each prototype is estimated at $400,000 to $500,000, and the Customs and Border Protection agency will have $20 million to use to produce these prototypes. President Trump has asked the Congress to assign $1.6 billion to build the wall this year but Congress has only approved $341 million to maintain the existing wall along the border and yet to approve a budget for the newly proposed wall.[48]

text: The exact cost of the newly proposed wall is not clear yet many experts on the issue predicted that it would cost a lot. There are differing opinions and cost estimates of building the wall. The Trump administration has estimated the cost of the wall at $12 billion, but the Department of Homeland Security estimated the cost at $21.6 billion. According to one report, the proposed wall would cost up to $70 billion, a significant difference. There is also no decision made on the actual structure of the wall but according to the Department of Homeland Security, the wall would be between 18 and 30 ft (5.5 and 9.1 m) high and as deep as 6 ft (1.8 m) underground to deter drug traffickers from building tunnels.[49]

text: Dangers of border control[edit]

text: The neutrality of this section is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (December 2017) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

text: As American officials have implemented heavier measures each year in terms of border control in efforts to decrease the number of illegal immigrants crossing over, they have simultaneously contributed to the deaths of thousands. It has been found that typically people who choose to illegally cross the Mexico–United States border do so because they either have no option to legally or because their options entailed waiting several years for paperwork to process. People make the decision of crossing illegally knowing the danger that lies ahead of them because they are also aware of visa restrictions, which provide citizens of wealthier and more democratic countries with more freedom of movement across international borders. In a world that is full of inequality, it comes as no surprise that people born into poorer countries would want to move to those that are richer and provide more opportunity. Because of this, affluent countries such as America feel the need to enhance visa and border restrictions.[50]

text: However, these efforts have not kept determined migrants out, and instead has raised the death toll to an all-time high. From the years of 1994 to 2000, there was a sharp increase of migrant deaths of those trying to gain entry. From 1994 to 2001, there were about 1,700 deaths reported along the Southwest border. This is not including the number of bodies that were not reported, which has undoubtedly increased as border enforcement is heavily concentrated in urban areas and is not as concentrated in areas that are more remote. The most convincing evidence of this is the change in causes of death among those trying to cross the border illegally. From 1995 to 2000, most migrant deaths along the Mexico-California border (308 of them) were caused by “environmental causes.” These include causes such as hypothermia from freezing to death over the mountains, dehydration from long periods of travelling without water, or heat stroke after days of struggling through the desert. In that same span of years, there was also an increase of deaths by drowning. Drowning is also a direct consequence of the strategy of border enforcement because migrants decide to travel by water to avoid the painful and exhausting heat of the desert. During these years, deaths from environmental factors and drowning together contributed to 78% of the total deaths, a percentage that increased sharply from years before.[51]

text: People who are considering traveling across the border illegally are generally aware of the dangers that could be encountered in terms of physical risk, but they remain determined. Of a survey done from December 1999 to May 2000 of 262.989 apprehended migrants returned to Mexico by Border Patrol, 70% expressed that they had risked their lives somehow during their attempt at crossing the border illegally. Of this same group, 36% expressed that they had experienced extreme heat or cold and 35% had suffered from dehydration and lack of food.[51]

text: Humanitarian Assistance Along the Border[edit]

text: Among the diversity of humanitarian assistance along the U.S.-Mexico border, there are groups who take on a more hands-on approach. The Humane Borders, No More Deaths, and Samaritans are all humanitarian groups that provide water in order to reduce deaths of immigrants who are journeying through the Arizona desert.[52] Despite having a common goal, a policy passed in 2010 by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife federal agency allowed water drums with 55 gallons of water to be placed in roads of disturbed areas, which supports method of Humane Borders and counters the methods of No More Deaths and Samaritans who place one-gallon jugs of water hanging from trees.[52]

text: In contrast, there are other humanitarian groups whose goal is create healthier communities along the U.S.-Mexico border. Due to an incidence rate of HIV and tuberculosis being higher in border towns such as El Paso, Texas and Ciudad Juarez, Sonora than at the national level in both countries, the Nuestra Casa Initiative, developed with the help of Project Concern International, the US Agency for International Development, the Alliance of Border Collaborative, Dr. Eva Moya and Damien Schumman, tried to counter the health disparities by using a cross-border strategy that moved around an exhibit prominent in various Museums and universities.[53] Similarly, Special Action Groups as part of the Border Health Strategic Initiative created by the University of Arizona with other groups helped create a healthier Hispanic community in Arizona border towns by creating policy and infrastructure changes both in the public and private factor.[54] These groups provided humanitarian assistance to counter the prominence of Type 2 diabetes among the Hispanic community since they acquired a block grant for new walking trails and encouraged public elementary schools to provide healthier food choices for students.[54]

text: Not only do these Hispanic communities faced health inequalities, but political inequalities as well. The need for political change was so huge that it has encouraged Hispanic women to engage in activism at a local level. The Neighborhood Action Group in Chula Vista, California is one of the groups of the attracted the help of local Hispanic women to implement a feminist perspective in activism in spite of the social and economic obstacles as well as Assembly Bill No. 775, 2005 that prohibited children being used as interpreters.[55] These humanitarian groups have implemented various strategies to pursue their goals that ultimately try to counter the number of immigrant deaths and abuses in immigrant detention even if it means the criminalization and higher levels of discrimination against them.[56]

text: In regards to the Humanitarian assistance along the U.S.-Mexico border on the Mexico side, most humanitarian groups focus on assisting the deportees. As rates of deportation continue to drastically increase, “the deportation of many individuals is becoming more and more notable” in the streets of Mexico cities.[57] As a result, many humanitarian groups have form along the Mexico cities where undocumented individuals are deported such as Nogales, Mexico. The humanitarian groups consist of faith-based communities and primarily non-profit organizations that assist the exhausted deportees. Not only are the deportees exhausted, but also many of them do not have any resources with them such as money, food, or family information that can help them. This oftentimes leads them to be homeless and go days without eating. They often go homeless because they "do not know where to turn to receive a meal, find shelter and to make a phone call".[58] Along with them arriving without those resources, many immigrants "find themselves in distress" due to the fact that they arrive to Mexico emotionally and psychologically devastated.[59] Contributing factors that might have caused them to be devastated can either be that they were separated from "their family members or the inability to work legally in the United States".[60] Therefore, the primary purpose of the humanitarian groups on the Mexico side of the border is to create a pathway for transitional support such as providing the deportees food, shelter, clothing, legal help and social services.[57] In addition, there are humanitarian groups that provides meals and shelter to deportees according to their deportation documents. Humanitarian groups along the border in Mexico are El Comedor, Nazareth House, Camino Juntos, La 72, and FM4: Paso Libre.

text: Border zone policies[edit]

text: Department of Homeland Security Secure Border Initiative[edit]

text: This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (March 2015) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

text: A National Border Patrol Strategic Plan was first developed in 1994 to deal with the fact that borders were being overrun by illegal immigrants and drug dealers. It was then updated in 2004 and 2012. In 2004 the updated strategy focused on command structures, intelligence and surveillance, enforcement and deployment of U.S. Border Patrol agents to better respond to threats at the border. The strategic planning led to broader policy development for the Department of Homeland Security which led to the Secure Border Initiative (SBI) in 2005 to secure U.S. borders and reduce illegal migration. The main components of SBI dealt with staffing concerns, removal capacity, surveillance and tactical infrastructure and interior enforcement.[61]

text: An additional component was “high consequence enforcement”, which was not the subject of a formal public policy document. There was the allowance, historically, for voluntary returns of individuals apprehended at the border by Border Patrol agents. These voluntary returns, after the SBI of 2005, were limited to three “high consequence outcomes”.[61]

text: One "high consequence outcome" was formal removal, which meant the individual would be deemed ineligible for a visa for at least five years and subject to criminal charges if caught re-entering illegally. The Immigration and Nationality Act permitted aliens to be formally removed with “limited judicial processing” known as expedited removal. The Department of Homeland Security has expanded between 2002 and 2006, expedited removal for “certain aliens that entered within previous two weeks and were apprehended within 100 miles (160 km) of the border”.[61]

text: Another “high consequence outcome” is the increase in criminal charges. Department of Homeland Security has also worked with the Department of Justice to increase the number of apprehended individuals crossing the border illegally who are charged with criminal offenses. Most of these cases are prosecuted under Operation Streamline.[61] The third “high consequence outcome” is known as remote repatriation. This is the return of apprehended Mexicans to remote locations by Border Patrol rather than the nearest Mexican port of entry.[61]

text: 100-mile border zone[edit]

text: Regulations establishing the 100-mile (160 km) zone were adopted by the U.S. Department of Justice as the result of an interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act in 1953.[62] Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) officials have authority for stop and search within this 100 miles (160 km) from any external boundary. This allows for CBP officials to enter private property without a warrant within 25 miles (40 km) of the border as well as the operation of checkpoints.[63]

text: The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects against unreasonable search and seizure; however, according to the government this does not fully apply at borders or border crossings (also known as ports of entry). This means that much of the U.S. population is subject to CBP regulations for stop and search. The 100 Mile Border Zone includes two thirds of the population, a majority of the largest cities in the U.S. and several entire states (namely Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, and New Jersey).[62]

text: There are some limits to CBP officials ability to stop and search. For instance CBP officials are not allowed to pull anyone over without a reasonable suspicion of immigration violation or crime, or search vehicles without warrant or probable cause. The ACLU, however, found that CBP officials routinely ignore or misunderstand the limits of authority, and this is compounded by inadequate training, lack of oversight and failure to hold officials accountable for abuse—incidence of abuse is common.[62]

text: Operation Streamline[edit]

text: Operation Streamline refers collectively to zero-tolerance policies implemented at the Mexico–U.S. border that seek to remove undocumented immigrants through an expedited process if they have arrived with missing or fraudulent identification or have previously been convicted for an immigration crime.[64]

text: History[edit]

text: Operation Streamline was first implemented in Del Rio, Texas, in 2005.[65] The program has since expanded to four out of the five federal judicial districts on the U.S.-Mexico border: Yuma, Arizona; Laredo, Texas; Tucson, Arizona; and Rio Grande Valley, Texas.[64][66]

text: Previously, immigrants apprehended at the border were either given the option to voluntarily return to their home country or they were placed in civil immigration proceedings.[64] After Operation Streamline was implemented, nearly all people apprehended at the border who are suspected of having crossed illegally are subject to criminal prosecution.[66] Defendants who are charged with crossing into the U.S. illegally are tried en masse to determine their guilt.[65] Defense attorneys often are responsible for representing anywhere from six to forty immigrants at once.[65] Around 99% of defendants in Operation Streamline proceedings plead guilty.[64] The defendants are charged with a misdemeanor if convicted of crossing the border illegally for the first time, and a felony if it is a repeat offense.[65]

text: In December 2009, it was decided in United States v. Roblero-Solis that en masse judicial proceedings like those in Operation Streamline violated Rule 11 in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Rule 11 states that the court must determine that a guilty plea is voluntarily made by addressing the defendant personally in court. The Roblero-Solis case determined that “personally” means that the judge must address the defendant in a person-to-person manner. Though many courts have changed their procedures to adapt to the ruling, there are still forms of en masse trials practiced at the border.[65]

text: Support and criticisms[edit]

text: Proponents of Operation Streamline claim that the harsher prosecution has been an important factor in deterring immigrants from crossing the border illegally. Apprehensions have decreased in certain sectors after 2005, which is seen as a sign of success. For example, the Del Rio, Texas, sector saw a decline from 2005 to 2009 of 75% (from 68,510 to 17,082). Similarly, apprehensions declined in Yuma, Arizona, by 95% (from 138,438 to 6,951) from 2006 to 2009.[66]

text: Criticisms of Operation Streamline point to the program’s heavy use of federal court and enforcement resources as a negative aspect.[66] In addition, the prosecution of all illegal border crossings takes the focus away from prosecuting more serious crimes.[66] They claim that the program’s cost is too high for the effectiveness of the work it is accomplishing.[65] In response to the claim that Operation Streamline is an effective deterrent, critics of the program claim that the incentives to cross the border in order to work or be with family are much stronger.[65]

text: Environment[edit]

text: History[edit]

text: The Agreement on Cooperation for the Protection and Improvement of the Environment in the Border Area, known as the La Paz Agreement, was signed into law on August 14, 1983, and became enforceable on February 16, 1984.[67] This agreement to protect the environment is the political foundation between the U.S. and Mexico for 4 subsequent programs. Each program has addressed environmental destruction in the border region resulting from the rise of the maquiladora industries, those who migrated to Northern Mexico to work in the industries, the lack of infrastructure to accommodate the people, Mexico's lax regulations concerning all these factors, the resulting spillover into the U.S., and the U.S.'s own environmentally destructive tendencies. The programs were: IBEP (1992), Border XXI (1996), Border 2012 (2003) and Border 2020 (2012).[68]

text: Impacts of border wall on wildlife[edit]

text: In 2006, during the presidency of George W. Bush, Congress approved Secure Fence Act which allowed the Department of Homeland Security to erect a border fence along the United State and Mexico border. A total of $2.2 billion was allocated to building this wall in five different areas of the border. Congress also approved a different law called the REAL ID Act which gave the Department of Homeland Security the approval to build the wall without taking into consideration the environmental and legal issues related to the wall. The United States Congress insisted that the act was passed for the sake of national security of the United States.[69]

text: According to a delegation of Arizona park and refuge managers, wildlife biologists, and conservationists who studied the United State and Mexico border concluded that building a wall along the Mexico border will also have negative impacts on the natural environment in the region. They argued that the border wall will negatively affect the wildlife in the Sonoran Desert including plants and animals. Naturally, animals do not tend to stay in one place and instead, they expedite to various places for water, plants, and other means in order to survive. The wall would restrict animals to a specific territory and would reduce their chances of survival. According to Brian Segee, a staff attorney with Wildlife Activists says that except high flying birds, the rest of the animals would not be able to move to other places due to the wall along the border. For instance, participants in this study argued that some of the animal kinds such as javelinas, ocelots, and Sonoran pronghorn would not be able to freely move along the border areas. It would also restrict the movement of jaguars from Sierra Madre Occidental forests to the southwestern parts of the United States. According to Brian Nowicki, a conservation biologist at the Center for Biological Diversity, there are 30 animal species living in the Arizona and Sonora that face danger and their movement to find new habitat and sources of survival would be restricted by the border wall.[69]

text: Travel[edit]

text: Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative[edit]

text: In late 2006, the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced a rule regarding new identification requirements for U.S. citizens and international travelers entering the United States implemented on January 23, 2007. This final rule and first phase of the WHTI specifies nine forms of identification, one of which is required to enter the United States by air: a valid passport; a passport card; a state enhanced driver's license or state enhanced non-driver ID card (available in Michigan, New York, Vermont, and Washington[70]) approved by the Secretary of Homeland Security; a trusted traveler program card (NEXUS, FAST, or SENTRI); an enhanced tribal identification card; a Native American Tribal Photo Identification Card; Form I-872 – American Indian Card; a valid Merchant Mariner Document when traveling in conjunction with official maritime business; or a valid U.S. military identification card when traveling on official orders.[71][72][73][74]

text: The Mexico–United States border is the world's busiest border, specifically the crossing at San Diego, California, to Tijuana, Baja California (15.6 miles between the cities), known as the San Ysidro Port of Entry.[75] In the U.S., Interstate 5 crosses directly to Tijuana, and the highway's southern terminus is this crossing. In 2005, more than 17 million vehicles and 50 million people entered the U.S. through San Ysidro.[76][77][78][79] Among those who enter the United States through San Ysidro are transfronterizos, American citizens who live in Mexico and attend school in the United States.[80]

text: Along the coast of Baja California, there are neighborhoods of Americans living in Tijuana, Rosarito Beach, and Ensenada, whose residents commute to the United States daily to work.[81] Additionally, many Mexicans also enter the United States to commute daily to work.[82] In 1999, 7.6% of the labor force of Tijuana was employed in San Diego.[83]

text: Barrier[edit]

text: The U.S. government had plans in 2006, during the Bush administration, to erect a border fence along the Mexico–U.S. border. The controversial proposal included creating many individual fences. Almost 600 miles (970 km) of fence was constructed, with each of the individual fences composed of steel and concrete.[24] In between these fences are infrared cameras and sensors, National Guard soldiers, and SWAT teams on alert, giving rise to the term "virtual fence".[24] Construction on the fence began in 2006, with each mile costing the U.S. government about $2.8 million.[13] In 2010, the initiative was terminated due to costs, after having completed 640 miles (1,030 km) of either barrier fence or vehicle barriers, that were either new or had been rebuilt over older, inferior fencing. The Boeing-built SBI-net systems of using radar, watchtowers, and sensors (without a fence or physical barrier) were scrapped for being over budget, full of glitches, and far behind schedule.[84]

text:
The U.S.–Mexico border fence near El Paso, Texas

Portion of border near Jacumba, California, in 2003

Portion of border near Jacumba, California, in 2009 with enhanced security

text: Veterinary inspections[edit]

text: When animals are imported from one country to another, there is the possibility that diseases and parasites can move with them. Thus, most countries impose animal health regulations on the import of animals. Most animals imported to the United States must be accompanied by import permits obtained in advance from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) and/or health certification papers from the country of origin.

text: Veterinary inspections are often required, and are available only at designated ports;[85] advance contact with port veterinarians is recommended.[86] Animals crossing the United States–Mexico border may have a country of origin other than the country where they present for inspection. Such animals include those from the U.S. that cross to Mexico and return, and animals from other countries that travel overland through Mexico or the U.S. before crossing the border.

text: Crossing from Mexico to the United States[edit]

text: APHIS imposes precautions to keep out several equine diseases, including glanders, dourine, equine infectious anemia (EIA), equine piroplasmosis (EP), Venezuelan equine encephalitis (VEE), and contagious equine metritis (CEM).[87] APHIS also checks horses to prevent the introduction of ticks and other parasites. In the Lower Rio Grande Valley, U.S. Department of Agriculture inspectors look for horses and livestock that stray across the border carrying ticks. These animals are often called wetstock, and the inspectors are referred to as tickriders.[88]

text: Per APHIS, horses originating from Canada can enter the United States with a Canadian government veterinary health certificate and a negative test for EIA.[87] Horses from Mexico must have a health certificate; pass negative tests for EIA, dourine, glanders, and EP at a USDA import center; and undergo precautionary treatments for external parasites at the port of entry. Horses from other Western Hemisphere countries must have the same tests as those from Mexico and, except for horses from Argentina, must be held in quarantine for at least seven days as a check for VEE.

text: APHIS imposes similar testing and certification requirements on horses from other parts of the world but without the quarantine for VEE. These horses are held in quarantine—usually three days—or until tests are completed. Because the disease equine piroplasmosis (equine babesiosis) is endemic in Mexico but not established in the United States,[89] transportation of horses from Mexico to the United States requires evaluation of horses for the presence of this disease.

text: Transportation of horses from Mexico to the United States normally requires at least three days in quarantine, which is incompatible with most recreational equestrian travel across the border. A leading exception to this rule is the special waiver obtained by riders participating in the Cabalgata Binacional Villista (see cavalcade).

text: Crossing from the United States to Mexico[edit]

text: Import from the United States to Mexico requires evidence within the prior 45 days of freedom from equine infectious anemia, among other requirements.[90] In August 2015, Mexico began enforcing a rule that all foreign citizens that plan to stay in the country for more than seven days or are travelling on business will have to pay a 330 peso (21 dollar) fee and show their passport.[91][92][93]


document_title: Premier League records and statistics

question_text: what player has scored the most goals in a premier league season

root

text: Premier League records and statistics

text: League records[edit]

text: Titles[edit]

text:
Most titles: 13, Manchester United[1]
Most consecutive title wins: 3
Manchester United (1998–99, 1999–2000, 2000–01)[1]
Manchester United (2006–07, 2007–08, 2008–09)[1]
Biggest title-winning margin: 19 points, 2017–18; Manchester City (100 points) over Manchester United (81 points)[2]
Smallest title-winning margin: 0 points and 8 goal difference – 2011–12; Manchester City (+64) over Manchester United (+56). Both finished on 89 points, but Manchester City won the title with a superior goal difference – the only time that goal difference has determined the Premier League.[3]

tag: ul

text: Points[edit]

text:
Most points in a season: 100, Manchester City (2017–18)[2]
Fewest points in a season: 11, Derby County (2007–08)[4]
Most home points in a season: 55, joint record:[5]
Chelsea (2005–06)
Manchester United (2010–11)
Manchester City (2011–12)[6]
Fewest home points in a season: 7, Sunderland (2005–06)[7]
Most away points in a season: 50, Manchester City (2017–18)[2]
Fewest away points in a season: 3, Derby County (2007–08)[7]
Most points in a season without winning the league: 89, Manchester United (2011–12)[8]
Fewest points in a season while winning the league: 75, Manchester United (1996–97)[9]
Most points in a season while being relegated:
42 games: 49, Crystal Palace (1992–93)[10]
38 games: 42, West Ham United (2002–03)[10]
Fewest points in a season while surviving relegation: 34, West Bromwich Albion (2004–05)[11]

text: Wins[edit]

text:
Most wins in total: 629, Manchester United[12]
Most wins in a season (38 games): 32, Manchester City (2017–18)[2]
Fewest wins in a season (38 games): 1, Derby County (2007–08)[7]
Most home wins in a season (19 games): 18, joint record:[13]
Chelsea (2005–06)
Manchester United (2010–11)
Manchester City (2011–12)[6]
Fewest home wins in a season (19 games): 1, joint record:[7]
Sunderland (2005–06)
Derby County (2007–08)
Most away wins in a season (19 games): 16, Manchester City (2017–18)[2]
Fewest away wins in a season (19/21 games): 0, joint record:[7][14][15]
Leeds United (1992–93)
Coventry City (1999–2000)
Wolverhampton Wanderers (2003–04)
Norwich City (2004–05)
Derby County (2007–08)
Hull City (2009–10)
Most consecutive wins: 18, Manchester City (between 26 August 2017 and 27 December 2017)[16][2]
Most consecutive home wins: 20, Manchester City (between 5 March 2011 and 21 March 2012)[17]
Most consecutive away wins: 11, joint record:[18][16]
Chelsea (between 6 April 2008 and 7 December 2008)
Manchester City (between 21 May 2017 and 27 December 2017)
Most consecutive games without a win: 32, Derby County (2007–08)[7]
Most consecutive games without a win from beginning of season: 16, Queens Park Rangers (between 18 August 2012 and 8 December 2012)[19]

text: Defeats[edit]

text:
Most defeats in total: 351, Everton[20]
Longest unbeaten run: 49 games, Arsenal (7 May 2003 – 24 October 2004)[21]
Fewest defeats in a season (38 games): 0, Arsenal (2003–04)[22]
Fewest home defeats in a season (19 games): 0, joint record:
Manchester United (1995–96, 1999–2000, 2010–11)[23][24][25]
Arsenal (1998–99, 2003–04, 2007–08)[26][27][28]
Chelsea (2004–05, 2005–06, 2006–07, 2007–08, 2014–15)[28][29][30][31][32]
Liverpool (2008–09, 2017–18)[33]
Manchester City (2011–12)[6]
Tottenham Hotspur (2016–17)
Fewest away defeats in a season (19 games): 0, Arsenal (2001–02, 2003–04)[27][34]
Most consecutive home games undefeated: 86, Chelsea (20 March 2004 – 5 October 2008)[35]
Most consecutive away games undefeated: 27, Arsenal (5 April 2003 – 25 September 2004)[36]
Most defeats in a season (42 games or 38 games): 29, joint record:
Ipswich Town (1994–95)
Sunderland (2005–06)
Derby County (2007–08)[37]
Most home defeats in a season (19 games): 14, Sunderland (2002–03, 2005–06)[38]
Most away defeats in a season (19 games): 17, Burnley (2009–10)[39]
Most consecutive defeats over more than one season (38 games): 20, Sunderland (2002–03, 2005–06)[40]

text: Draws[edit]

text:
Most draws in total: 287, Everton[20]
Most draws in a season (42 games): 18 – joint record:
Manchester City (1993–94)[41]
Sheffield United (1993–94)[41]
Southampton (1994–95)[41]
Most draws in a season (38 games): 17 – joint record:
Newcastle United (2003–04)[41]
Aston Villa (2006–07, 2011–12)[41]
Sunderland (2014–15)[41]
Most home draws in a season: 10 – joint record:
Sheffield Wednesday (1996–97)[41]
Leicester City (1997–98, 2003–04)[41]
Manchester United (2016–17)[41]
Most away draws in a season: 10, Newcastle United (2003–04)[41]
Fewest draws in a season: 3, Chelsea (1997–98, 2016–17)[41]
Fewest home draws in a season: 0 – joint record:
Manchester City (2008–09)[41]
Manchester United (2012–13)[41]
Chelsea (2016–17)[41]
Fewest away draws in a season: 1 – joint record:
Bolton Wanderers (1995–96)[41]
Queens Park Rangers (1995–96, 2014–15)[41]
Barnsley (1997–98)[41]
Chelsea (1997–98)[41]
Bradford City (1999–2000)[41]
Everton (2000–01)[41]
Ipswich Town (2000–01)[41]
Portsmouth (2005–06, 2007–08)[41]
Burnley (2009–10)[41]
Liverpool (2011–12)[41]
Newcastle United (2013–14)[41]
Queens Park Rangers (2014–15)[41]
Most consecutive draws: 7 – joint record:
Norwich City (1993–94)[41]
Southampton (1994–95)[41]
Manchester City (2009–10)[41]

text: Goals[edit]

text:
Most goals scored in a season: 106, Manchester City (2017–18)[2]
Fewest goals scored in a season: 20, Derby County (2007–08)[42]
Most goals conceded in a season (42 games): 100, Swindon Town (1993–94)[43]
Most goals conceded in a season (38 games): 89, Derby County (2007–08)[44]
Fewest goals conceded in a season: 15, Chelsea (2004–05)[45]
Best goal difference in a season: 79, Manchester City (2017–18)[2]
Worst goal difference in a season: –69, Derby County (2007–08)[46]
Most goals scored in a season by a relegated team: 55, Blackpool (2010–11)[47]
Most goals scored at home in a season: 68, Chelsea (2009–10)[45]
Fewest goals scored at home in a season: 10, Manchester City (2006–07)[48]
Most goals conceded at home in a season (21 games): 45, Swindon Town (1993–94)[49]
Most goals conceded at home in a season (19 games): 43
Derby County (2007–08)[49]
Wolverhampton Wanderers (2011–12)[49]
Fewest goals conceded at home in a season (21 games or 19 games): 4, Manchester United (1994–95)[49]
Most goals scored away in a season: 48, Liverpool (2013–14)[49]
Fewest goals scored away in a season: 8
Middlesbrough (1995–96)[49]
Southampton (1998–99)[49]
Sheffield United (2006–07)[49]
Derby County (2007–08)[49]
Most goals conceded away in a season (21 games): 59, Ipswich Town (1994–95)[49]
Most goals conceded away in a season (19 games): 55, Wigan Athletic (2009–10)[49]
Fewest goals conceded away in a season: 9, Chelsea (2004–05)[49]
Fewest failures to score in a match in a season: 0 (scored in every game), Arsenal (2001–02)[50]
Most goals scored in total: 1,924, Manchester United[20]
Most goals conceded in total: 1,267, Tottenham Hotspur[20]

text: Attendances[edit]

text:
Highest attendance, single game: 83,222, Tottenham Hotspur 1–0 Arsenal (at Wembley Stadium, 10 February 2018)[51]
Lowest attendance, single game: 3,039, Wimbledon 1–3 Everton (at Selhurst Park, 26 January 1993)[52][53]
Highest season average attendance: 75,821 – Old Trafford, Manchester United (2006–07)[54]
Lowest season average attendance: 8,353 – Selhurst Park, Wimbledon (1992–93)[54]

text: Player records[edit]

text: Appearances[edit]

text:
Most Premier League appearances: 653, Gareth Barry (2 May 1998 to 24 February 2018)[55]
Oldest player: John Burridge, 43 years and 162 days (for Manchester City v. Queens Park Rangers, 14 May 1995)[56]
Youngest player: Matthew Briggs, 16 years and 65 days (for Fulham v. Middlesbrough, 13 May 2007)[57]
Most consecutive Premier League appearances: 310, Brad Friedel (14 August 2004 until 7 October 2012)[58]
Most seasons appeared in: 22, Ryan Giggs (every season from 1992–93 to 2013–14)[59]

text: Goals[edit]

text:
First Premier League goal: Brian Deane (for Sheffield United v. Manchester United, 15 August 1992)[60]
Most Premier League goals: 260, Alan Shearer[61]
Most Premier League goals at one club: 183, Wayne Rooney (Manchester United)[62]
Oldest goalscorer: 40 years and 268 days, Teddy Sheringham (for West Ham United v. Portsmouth, 26 December 2006)[63]
Youngest goalscorer: 16 years and 271 days, James Vaughan (for Everton v. Crystal Palace, 10 April 2005)[64]
Most consecutive Premier League matches scored in: 11, Jamie Vardy (for Leicester City, 29 August to 28 November 2015)[65]
Most seasons scored in: 21, Ryan Giggs (every season from 1992–93 to 2012–13)[66]

text:
Rank

Name

Goals

Games

Goals per game

Playing position

First goal

Last goal

1

 Alan Shearer
260
441
0.59
Forward
1992–93
2005–06

2

 Wayne Rooney
208
491
0.42
Forward
2002–03
2017–18

3

 Andy Cole
187
414
0.45
Forward
1993–94
2006–07

4

 Frank Lampard
177
609
0.29
Midfield
1997–98
2014–15

5

 Thierry Henry
175
258
0.68
Forward
1999–2000
2011–12

6

 Robbie Fowler
163
379
0.43
Forward
1993–94
2006–07

7

 Jermain Defoe
162
493
0.33
Forward
2001–02
2017–18

8

 Michael Owen
150
326
0.46
Forward
1996–97
2012–13

9

 Les Ferdinand
149
351
0.42
Forward
1992–93
2004–05

=10

 Teddy Sheringham
146
418
0.35
Forward
1992–93
2006–07

=10

 Sergio Aguero
146
208
0.70
Forward
2011–12
2018–19

tag: table

tag: p

text:
Most goals in a season (42 games): 34, joint record:[68]
Andy Cole (Newcastle United, 1993–94)
Alan Shearer (Blackburn Rovers, 1994–95)

text:
Most goals in a season (38 games): 32, Mohamed Salah (Liverpool, 2017–18)[69]
Most games scored in during a Premier League season: 24, Mohamed Salah (Liverpool, 2017–18)[70]
Most Premier League goals in a calendar year: 39, Harry Kane (Tottenham Hotspur, 2017)[71]
Number of teams scored against in a season: 17, joint record:
20-team league:[69]
Ian Wright (Arsenal, 1996–97)
Robin van Persie (Arsenal, 2011–12)
Mohamed Salah (Liverpool, 2017–18)
22-team league:[citation needed]
Andy Cole (Newcastle United, 1993–94)
Alan Shearer (Blackburn Rovers, 1994–95)
Most goals in a debut season: 30, Kevin Phillips (Sunderland, 1999–2000)[72]
Most Premier League hat-tricks in a season: 5, Alan Shearer (38 games) (Blackburn Rovers, 1995–96)[73]
Most Premier League hat-tricks: 11, Alan Shearer[74]
Most goals in a game: 5, joint record:[75]
Andy Cole (for Manchester United v. Ipswich Town, 4 March 1995) W 9–0
Alan Shearer (for Newcastle United v. Sheffield Wednesday, 19 September 1999) W 8–0
Jermain Defoe (for Tottenham Hotspur v. Wigan Athletic, 22 November 2009) W 9–1
Dimitar Berbatov (for Manchester United v. Blackburn Rovers, 27 November 2010) W 7–1
Sergio Agüero (for Manchester City v. Newcastle United, 3 October 2015) W 6–1

text:
Most goals in one half: 5, Jermain Defoe (for Tottenham Hotspur v. Wigan Athletic, 22 November 2009) W 9–1[76]
Fastest goal: 10 seconds, Ledley King (for Tottenham Hotspur v. Bradford City, 9 December 2000)[77]
Most goals scored by a substitute in a game: 4, Ole Gunnar Solskjær (for Manchester United v. Nottingham Forest, 6 February 1999)[78]
Most consecutive away league matches scored in: 9, Robin van Persie (for Arsenal, 1 January 2011 to 22 May 2011)[79]
Most consecutive seasons to score at least 30 goals: 3 (1993–1996), Alan Shearer (all for Blackburn Rovers)[80]
Most consecutive seasons to score at least 25 goals: 4 (1993–1997), Alan Shearer (1993–1996 for Blackburn Rovers, 1996–1997 for Newcastle United)[81]
Most consecutive seasons to score at least 20 goals: 5 (2001–2006), Thierry Henry (all for Arsenal)[81]
Most consecutive seasons to score at least 10 goals: 11 (2004–2015), Wayne Rooney (all for Manchester United)[82]
Most consecutive seasons to score at least 1 goal: 21 (1992–2013), Ryan Giggs (all for Manchester United)[66]
Fastest Premier League hat-trick: 2 minutes 56 seconds, Sadio Mané (for Southampton v. Aston Villa, 16 May 2015)[83]
Most different clubs to score for: 7, Craig Bellamy (for Coventry City, Newcastle United, Blackburn Rovers, Liverpool, West Ham United, Manchester City, Cardiff City)[84]
Most own goals: 10, Richard Dunne[85]
Most own goals in a season: 4, joint record:
Martin Škrtel (2013–14)[86]
Lewis Dunk (2017–18)[87]
Most hat-tricks against a single club: 3, Luis Suárez (for Liverpool v. Norwich City)[88]
Most goals in a calendar month: 10 (December 2013), Luis Suárez (Liverpool)[89]

text: Assists[edit]

text:
Most assists (career)

Rank
Player
Assists

1
 Ryan Giggs
162

2
 Cesc Fàbregas
111

3
 Wayne Rooney
103

4
 Frank Lampard
102

5
 Dennis Bergkamp
94

6
 Steven Gerrard
92

7
 David Beckham
80

8
 James Milner
78

9
 Teddy Sheringham
76

10
 David Silva
75

text:
Most Premier League assists in a season: 20, Thierry Henry (Arsenal, 2002–03)[91]
Most consecutive Premier League matches with an assist: 7, Mesut Özil (for Arsenal, 26 September to 21 November 2015)[92]
Most assists in a single Premier League match: 4, joint record:[93]
Dennis Bergkamp (for Arsenal v. Leicester City, 20 February 1999)
José Antonio Reyes (for Arsenal v. Middlesbrough, 14 January 2006)
Cesc Fàbregas (for Arsenal v. Blackburn Rovers, 4 October 2009)
Emmanuel Adebayor (for Tottenham Hotspur v. Newcastle United, 11 February 2012)
Santi Cazorla (for Arsenal v. Wigan Athletic, 14 May 2013)
Dušan Tadić (for Southampton  v. Sunderland, 18 October 2014)[94]

text: Goalkeepers[edit]

text:
Most clean sheets (career)

Rank
Player
Clean  sheets

1
 Petr Čech
201

2
 David James
169

3
 Mark Schwarzer
151

4
 David Seaman
140

5
 Nigel Martyn
137

6
 Pepe Reina
134

7
 Edwin van der Sar
132

 Tim Howard

 Brad Friedel

10
 Peter Schmeichel
128

text:
Most clean sheets in one season: 24, Petr Čech (for Chelsea, 2004–05)[95]
Longest consecutive run without conceding a goal: 14 games (1,311 minutes), Edwin van der Sar (for Manchester United, 2008–09)[96]
Goalscoring goalkeepers (excluding own goals):
Peter Schmeichel (Everton 3–2 Aston Villa, 20 October 2001)[97]
Brad Friedel (Charlton Athletic 3–2 Blackburn Rovers, 21 February 2004)[98]
Paul Robinson (Tottenham Hotspur 3–1 Watford, 17 March 2007)[99]
Tim Howard (Everton 1–2 Bolton Wanderers, 4 January 2012)[100]
Asmir Begović (Stoke City 1–1 Southampton, 2 November 2013)[101]

text: Disciplinary[edit]

text:
Most red cards: 8, joint record:[55]
Duncan Ferguson
Patrick Vieira
Richard Dunne
Most yellow cards for a player: 103, Gareth Barry[67]
Most yellow cards for a single team in one game: 9 (Tottenham Hotspur v. Chelsea, 2 May 2016)[102]
Fouling record: 782, Kevin Davies (since 2000–01, the first season for which reliable records are available)[103]
Longest ban: 12 matches, Joey Barton. After being dismissed for violent conduct, Barton was found guilty of two further separate counts of violent conduct after his dismissal against Manchester City, 23 May 2012[104]

text: Youngest goalscorers[edit]

text: This is a list of the top 10 youngest players to score a goal in the Premier League.[105]

text:
Player

Date

Team

Age

Opposition

1

James Vaughan

10 April 2005

Everton

16 years, 270 days

Crystal Palace

2

James Milner

26 December 2002

Leeds United

16 years, 346 days

Sunderland

3

Wayne Rooney

19 October 2002

Everton

16 years, 351 days

Arsenal

4

Cesc Fàbregas

25 August 2004

Arsenal

17 years, 114 days

Blackburn Rovers

5

Michael Owen

6 May 1997

Liverpool

17 years, 144 days

Wimbledon

6

Andy Turner

5 September 1992

Tottenham

17 years, 166 days

Everton

7

Federico Macheda

5 April 2009

Manchester United

17 years, 226 days

Aston Villa

8

Raheem Sterling

20 October 2012

Liverpool

17 years, 317 days

Reading

9

Mikael Forssell

20 February 1999

Chelsea

17 years, 342 days

Nottingham Forest

10

Danny Cadamarteri

20 September 1997

Everton

17 years, 344 days

Barnsley

text: Match records[edit]

text: Scorelines[edit]

text:
Biggest home win: 9–0, Manchester United v. Ipswich Town (4 March 1995)[106]
Biggest away win: 1–8, Nottingham Forest v. Manchester United (6 February 1999)[106]
Biggest aggregate win: 12–1, joint record:
Blackburn Rovers 7–0 Nottingham Forest (18 November 1995) & Nottingham Forest 1–5 Blackburn Rovers (13 April 1996)
Tottenham Hotspur 9–1 Wigan Athletic (22 November 2009) & Wigan Athletic 0–3 Tottenham Hotspur (21 February 2010)
Biggest loss by reigning champions: 1–6, joint record:[107]
Manchester United 1–6 Manchester City (23 October 2011), after Manchester United won the 2010–11 season
Leicester City 1–6 Tottenham Hotspur (18 May 2017), after Leicester City won the 2015–16 season
Largest goal deficit overcome to win: 3
Leeds United 4–3 Derby County (8 November 1997)[108]
West Ham United 3–4 Wimbledon (9 September 1998)[109]
Tottenham Hotspur 3–5 Manchester United (29 September 2001)[110]
Wolverhampton Wanderers 4–3 Leicester City (25 October 2003)[111]
Largest goal deficit overcome to draw: 4, Newcastle United 4–4 Arsenal (5 February 2011)[112]
Highest scoring: 7–4, Portsmouth v. Reading (29 September 2007)[113]
Highest scoring draw: 5–5, West Bromwich Albion v. Manchester United (19 May 2013)[114]
Highest scoring in the first half: 7 goals, joint record:
Blackburn Rovers 3–4 Leeds United (14 September 1997 – final score; 3–4)[115]
Bradford City 4–3 Derby County (21 April 2000 – final score; 4–4)[116]
Reading 3–4 Manchester United (1 December 2012 – final score; 3–4)[117]
Most individual goal scorers in one game: 9, joint record:
Tottenham Hotspur 4–5 Arsenal (13 November 2004)[118]
Portsmouth 7–4 Reading (29 September 2007)[119]
Most individual goal scorers in one game for the same team: 7, joint record:
Chelsea 8–0 Aston Villa (23 December 2012)[120]
Manchester City 7–0 Norwich City (2 November 2013)[121]
Southampton 8–0 Sunderland (18 October 2014)[122]

text: All-time Premier League table[edit]

text: The all-time Premier League table is a cumulative record of all match results, points and goals of every team that has played in the Premier League since its inception in 1992. The table that follows is accurate as of the end of the 2017–18 season. Teams in bold are part of the 2018–19 Premier League. Numbers in bold are the record (highest either positive or negative) numbers in each column.[123]

text:
Pos.

Club

Seasons

Pld

Win

Draw

Loss

GF

GA

GD

Pts

1st

2nd

3rd

4th

Relegated

AvgPts

BestPos.

1
Manchester United

26
1000
629
215
156
1924
875
1049
2102
13
6
3
1

80.85
1

2
Arsenal

26
1000
544
253
203
1772
962
810
1885
3
6
5
7

72.50
1

3
Chelsea

26
1000
537
248
215
1707
963
744
1859
5
4
4
2

71.50
1

4
Liverpool

26
1000
499
255
246
1685
1024
661
1752

3
5
7

67.38
2

5
Tottenham Hotspur

26
1000
423
255
322
1480
1267
213
1524

1
2
2

58.62
2

6
Everton

26
1000
362
287
351
1303
1265
38
1373

1

52.81
4

7
Manchester City

21
810
359
194
257
1279
952
327
1271
3
2
2
1
2
60.52
1

8
Newcastle United

23
882
334
225
323
1207
1187
20
1227

2
2
1
2
53.35
2

9
Aston Villa

24
924
316
275
333
1117
1186
−69
1223

1

1
1
50.96
2

10
West Ham United

22
844
275
221
348
1012
1214
−202
1046

2
47.55
5

11
Blackburn Rovers

18
696
262
184
250
927
907
20
970
1
1

1
2
53.89
1

12
Southampton

19
734
229
202
303
892
1022
−130
889

1
46.79
6

13
Leeds United

12
468
189
125
154
641
573
68
692

1
2
1
57.67
3

14
Middlesbrough

15
574
165
169
240
648
794
−146
661[124]

4
44.01
7

15
Sunderland

16
608
153
159
296
612
904
−292
618

4
38.63
7

16
Fulham

13
494
150
136
208
570
697
−127
586

1
45.08
7

17
Bolton Wanderers

13
494
149
128
217
575
745
−170
575

3
44.23
6

18
Leicester City

12
460
142
129
189
572
670
−98
555
1

3
46.25
1

19
West Bromwich Albion

12
456
112
128
216
475
696
−221
464

4
38.67
8

20
Stoke City

10
380
116
109
155
398
525
−127
457

1
45.70
9

21
Coventry City

9
354
99
112
143
387
490
−103
409

1
45.40
11

22
Sheffield Wednesday

8
316
101
89
126
409
453
−44
392

1
49.00
7

23
Wimbledon

8
316
99
94
123
384
472
−88
391

1
48.88
6

24
Crystal Palace

9
350
97
89
164
374
511
−137
380

4
42.22
10

25
Charlton Athletic

8
304
93
82
129
342
442
−100
361

2
45.13
7

26
Norwich City

8
316
89
92
135
365
510
−145
359

1

4
44.88
3

27
Wigan Athletic

8
304
85
76
143
316
482
−166
331

1
41.38
10

28
Swansea City

7
266
82
66
118
306
383
−77
312

1
44.57
8

29
Queens Park Rangers

7
278
81
65
132
339
431
−92
308

3
44.00
5

30
Birmingham City

7
266
73
82
111
273
360
−87
301

3
43.00
9

31
Portsmouth

7
266
79
65
122
292
380
−88
293[125]

1
41.86
8

32
Derby County

7
266
68
70
128
271
420
−149
274

2
39.14
8

33
Nottingham Forest

5
198
60
59
79
229
287
−58
239

1

3
47.80
3

34
Ipswich Town

5
202
57
53
92
219
312
−93
224

2
44.80
5

35
Watford

5
190
45
43
102
188
318
−130
178

2
35.60
13

36
Hull City

5
190
41
48
101
181
323
−142
171

3
34.20
16

37
Burnley

4
152
40
37
75
145
229
−84
157

2
39.25
7

38
Wolverhampton Wanderers

4
152
32
40
80
156
281
−125
136

2
34.00
15

39
Sheffield United

3
122
32
36
54
128
168
−40
132

2
44.00
14

40
Bournemouth

3
114
34
30
50
145
195
−50
132

44.00
9

41
Reading

3
114
32
23
59
136
186
−50
119

2
39.67
8

42
Oldham Athletic

2
84
22
23
39
105
142
−37
89

1
44.50
19

43
Bradford City

2
76
14
20
42
68
138
−70
62

1
31.00
17

44
Brighton & Hove Albion

1
38
9
13
16
34
54
–20
40

40.00
15

45
Blackpool

1
38
10
9
19
55
78
−23
39

1
39.00
19

46
Huddersfield Town

1
38
9
10
19
28
58
–30
37

37.00
16

47
Barnsley

1
38
10
5
23
37
82
−45
35

1
35.00
19

48
Cardiff City

1
38
7
9
22
32
74
−42
30

1
30.00
20

49
Swindon Town

1
42
5
15
22
47
100
−53
30

1
30.00
22

text: League or status at 2018–19:

text:
2018–19 Premier League teams

2018–19 EFL Championship teams

2018–19 EFL League One teams

2018–19 EFL League Two teams

Defunct teams

text: By a 2007 agreement, neither Milton Keynes Dons nor AFC Wimbledon regards itself as custodian of Wimbledon F.C.'s statistics.[126][127]

text: Managers[edit]

text:
Most Premier League titles: 13, Sir Alex Ferguson (Manchester United) – 1993, 1994, 1996, 1997, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2011, 2013
Most Premier League Manager of the Month awards: 27, Sir Alex Ferguson
Most consecutive Premier League Manager of the Month awards: 4, Pep Guardiola[128]
Most promotions to the Premier League: 4, Steve Bruce (Birmingham City in 2001–02 and 2006–07 and Hull City in 2012–13 and 2015–16)
Most relegations from the Premier League: 3, Dave Bassett (Sheffield United in 1993–94, Nottingham Forest in 1996–97, and Leicester City in 2001–02)[129]
Longest spell as manager: 21 years, 224 days, Arsène Wenger (Arsenal, 1 October 1996 to 13 May 2018)[130]
Shortest spell as manager (excluding caretakers): 41 days, Les Reed (Charlton Athletic, 14 November 2006 to 24 December 2006) (8 games)[131]


document_title: Biblical languages

question_text: what is the first language bible was written

text: Biblical languages

text:
Part of a series on the

Bible

Canons and books

[show]

Tanakh

Torah
Nevi'im
Ketuvim

Christian biblical canons
Hebrew Bible

Old Testament (OT)
New Testament (NT)

Deuterocanon
Antilegomena

Chapters and verses

Apocrypha

Jewish
OT
NT

Authorship and development

[show]

Authorship
Dating
Hebrew canon

Old Testament canon
New Testament canon
Documentary hypothesis
Mosaic authorship

Pauline epistles
Petrine epistles

Johannine works

Translations and manuscripts

[show]

Samaritan Torah
Dead Sea scrolls
Masoretic Text
Targumim
Peshitta
Septuagint
Vulgate
Gothic Bible
Vetus Latina
Luther Bible
English Bibles

Biblical studies[show]

Archeology
Artifacts
Dating

Historicity
Internal consistency

People
Places
Names

Novum Testamentum Graece
Documentary hypothesis
Synoptic problem
NT textual categories

Biblical criticism

Historical
Textual
Source
Form
Redaction
Canonical

Interpretation[show]

Hermeneutics

Pesher
Midrash
Pardes

Allegorical interpretation
Literalism

Prophecy
Inspiration
Humor
Violence
Alcohol
Ethics
Slavery
Women
Muhammad
Homosexuality

Perspectives[show]

Gnostic
Islamic
Qur'anic

Inerrancy
Infallibility

Criticism of the Bible

Outline of Bible-related topics
 Bible book     Bible portal

v
t
e

text: Biblical languages are any of the languages employed in the original writings of the Bible. Partially owing to the significance of the Bible in society, Biblical languages are studied more widely than many other dead languages. Furthermore, some debates exist as to which language is the original language of a particular passage, and about whether a term has been properly translated from an ancient language into modern editions of the Bible. Scholars generally recognize three languages as original biblical languages: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek.

text: Language of the Hebrew Bible[edit]

text: The Hebrew Bible (Hebrew: תנ"ך), also known as the Tanakh, consists of 39 books. "Hebrew" in "Hebrew Bible" may refer to either the Hebrew language or to the Hebrew people who historically used Hebrew as a spoken language, and have continuously used the language in prayer and study, or both. The texts were mainly written in Biblical Hebrew, with some portions (notably in Daniel and Ezra) in Biblical Aramaic. Biblical Hebrew, sometimes called Classical Hebrew, is an archaic form of the Hebrew language.

text: The very first translation of the Hebrew Bible was into Greek. This is known as the Septuagint (LXX), which later became the received text of the Old Testament in the Catholic church and the basis of its canon. This began sometime in the 2nd or 3rd century BC, with the first portion of the Hebrew Bible, the Torah, being translated into Koine Greek. Over the next century, other books were translated (or composed) as well. This translation became known as the Septuagint and was widely used by Greek-speaking Jews, and later by Christians. It differs somewhat from the later standardized Hebrew (Masoretic Text). This translation was promoted by way of a legend that seventy separate translators all produced identical texts.

text: The Latin Vulgate by Jerome was based upon the Hebrew for those books of the Bible preserved in the Jewish canon (as reflected in the Masoretic Text), and on the Greek text for the rest. Other ancient Jewish translations, such as the Aramaic Targums, conform closely to the Masoretic Text, and all medieval and modern Jewish translations are based upon the same. Christian translations also tend to be based upon the Hebrew, though some denominations prefer the Septuagint (or may cite variant readings from both). Bible translations incorporating modern textual criticism usually begin with the Masoretic Text, but also take into account possible variants from all available ancient versions.

text: Languages of the New Testament[edit]

text: The books of the Christian New Testament are widely agreed to have originally been written in Greek, specifically Koine Greek, even though some authors often included translations from Hebrew and Aramaic texts. Certainly the Pauline Epistles were written in Greek for Greek-speaking audiences. See Greek primacy for further details. Koine Greek was the popular form of Greek which emerged in post-classical antiquity (c.300 BC – AD 300), and marks the third period in the history of the Greek language.[1] It is also called Alexandrian, Hellenistic, Common, or New Testament Greek.

text: Some scholars believe that some books of the Greek New Testament (in particular, the Gospel of Matthew) are actually translations of a Hebrew or Aramaic original. A famous example of this is the opening to the Gospel of John, which some scholars argue to be a Greek translation of an Aramaic hymn. Of these, a small number accept the Syriac Peshitta as representative of the original. See Aramaic primacy.

text: However, the received text of the New Testament is Greek and nearly all translations are based upon the Greek text.


document_title: List of largest empires

question_text: who has had the largest empire in history

text: List of largest empires

text: Measurement[edit]

text: This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (March 2017)

text: Both what constitutes an empire and the calculation of the land area of a particular empire are controversial subjects. Rein Taagepera has defined an empire as "any relatively large sovereign political entity whose components are not sovereign" and its size as the area over which the empire has some undisputed military and taxation prerogatives.[1]

text: Largest empires by land area[edit]

text: For context, note that the total land area of the Earth is 148,940,000 km2 (57,506,000 sq mi).[2] This is a list of empires whose greatest extent exceeded 2% of that area.

text: Empires at their greatest extent[edit]

text: This section's factual accuracy is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on Talk:List of largest empires. Please help to ensure that disputed statements are reliably sourced. (December 2017) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

text:
Empire
Max. land area (million km2)
Max. land area (million mi2)
% of world land area
Year

British Empire
35.5[3]
13.71
7001238400000000000♠23.84%
000000001920-01-01-00001920[3]

Mongol Empire
24.0[3][4]
9.27
7001161100000000000♠16.11%
000000001270-01-01-00001270[4] or 000000001309-01-01-00001309[3]

Russian Empire
22.8[3][4]
8.80
7001153100000000000♠15.31%
000000001895-01-01-00001895[3][4]

Qing dynasty
14.7[3][4]
5.68
7000986990000099999♠9.87%
000000001790-01-01-00001790[3][4]

Spanish Empire
13.7[3]
5.29
7000920000000099999♠9.20%
000000001810-01-01-00001810[3]

Second French colonial empire
11.5[3]
4.44
7000772000000000000♠7.72%
000000001920-01-01-00001920[3]

Abbasid Caliphate
11.1[3][4]
4.29
7000745000000000000♠7.45%
000000000750-01-01-0000750[3][4]

Umayyad Caliphate
11.1[3]
4.29
7000745000000000000♠7.45%
000000000720-01-01-0000720[3]

Yuan dynasty
11.0[3]
4.25
7000739000000000000♠7.39%
000000001310-01-01-00001310[3]

Portuguese Empire
10.4[5][unreliable source?]
4.02
7000698000000000000♠6.98%
000000001815-01-01-00001815[5][unreliable source?]

Xiongnu Empire
9.0[4][6]
3.47
7000604000000000000♠6.04%
-999999999824-01-01-0000176 BC[4][6]

Brazilian Empire
8.337[7]
3.22
7000560000000099999♠5.60%
000000001889-01-01-00001889[7]

Eastern Han dynasty
6.5[6]
2.51
7000436000000000000♠4.36%
000000000100-01-01-0000100[6]

Ming dynasty
6.5[3][4]
2.51
7000436000000000000♠4.36%
000000001450-01-01-00001450[3][4]

Rashidun Caliphate
6.4[3]
2.47
7000430000000000000♠4.30%
000000000655-01-01-0000655[3]

Göktürk Khaganate
6.0[4][6]
2.32
7000403000000000000♠4.03%
000000000557-01-01-0000557[4][6]

Golden Horde Khanate
6.0[3][4]
2.32
7000403000000000000♠4.03%
000000001310-01-01-00001310[3][4]

Western Han dynasty
6.0[4][6]
2.32
7000403000000000000♠4.03%
-999999999950-01-01-000050 BC[4][6]

Achaemenid Empire
5.5[4][6]
2.12
7000369000000000000♠3.69%
-999999999500-01-01-0000500 BC[4][6]

Tang dynasty
5.4[3][4]
2.08
7000363000000000000♠3.63%
000000000715-01-01-0000715[3][4]

Macedonian Empire
5.2[4][6]
2.01
7000349000000000000♠3.49%
-999999999677-01-01-0000323 BC[4][6]

Ottoman Empire
5.2[3][4]
2.01
7000349000000000000♠3.49%
000000001683-01-01-00001683[3][4]

Maurya Empire
5.0[4]
1.93
7000336000000000000♠3.36%
-999999999750-01-01-0000250 BC[4]

Roman Empire
5.0[4][6]
1.93
7000336000000000000♠3.36%
000000000117-01-01-0000117[4][6]

Tibetan Empire
4.6[3][4]
1.78
7000309000000000000♠3.09%
000000000800-01-01-0000800[3][4]

Timurid Empire
4.4[3][4]
1.70
7000295000000000000♠2.95%
000000001405-01-01-00001405[3][4]

Fatimid Caliphate
4.1[3][4]
1.58
7000275000000000000♠2.75%
000000000969-01-01-0000969[3][4]

Eastern Turkic Khaganate
4.0[6]
1.54
7000269000000000000♠2.69%
000000000624-01-01-0000624[6]

Hephthalite Empire
4.0[6]
1.54
7000269000000000000♠2.69%
000000000470-01-01-0000470[6]

Hunnic Empire
4.0[4][6]
1.54
7000269000000000000♠2.69%
000000000441-01-01-0000441[4][6]

Mughal Empire
4.0[3][4]
1.54
7000269000000000000♠2.69%
000000001690-01-01-00001690[3][4]

Great Seljuq Empire
3.9[3][4]
1.51
7000262000000000000♠2.62%
000000001080-01-01-00001080[3][4]

Seleucid Empire
3.9[4][6]
1.51
7000262000000000000♠2.62%
-999999999699-01-01-0000301 BC[4][6]

Italian Empire
3.798[8]
1.47
7000255000000099999♠2.55%
000000001938-01-01-00001938[8]

Ilkhanate
3.75[3][4]
1.45
7000252000000000000♠2.52%
000000001310-01-01-00001310[3][4]

Khwarazmian Empire
3.6[3]
1.39
7000242000000000000♠2.42%
000000001218-01-01-00001218[3]

Chagatai Khanate
3.5[3][4]
1.35
7000235000000000000♠2.35%
000000001310-01-01-00001310[3] or 000000001350-01-01-00001350[3][4]

Gupta Empire
3.5[4]
1.35
7000235000000000000♠2.35%
000000000400-01-01-0000400[4]

Sasanian Empire
3.5[4][6]
1.35
7000235000000000000♠2.35%
000000000550-01-01-0000550[4][6]

Western Turkic Khaganate
3.5[6]
1.35
7000235000000000000♠2.35%
000000000630-01-01-0000630[6]

First French colonial empire
3.4[3]
1.31
7000227990000099999♠2.28%
000000001670-01-01-00001670[3]

Ghaznavid Empire
3.4[3][4]
1.31
7000227990000099999♠2.28%
000000001029-01-01-00001029[3][4]

Delhi Sultanate (Tughlaq dynasty)
3.2[3][4]
1.24
7000215000000000000♠2.15%
000000001312-01-01-00001312[3][4]

German colonial empire
3.199[9][10]
1.24
7000215000000000000♠2.15%
000000001912-01-01-00001912[10]

Song dynasty
3.1[3][4]
1.20
7000208000000000000♠2.08%
000000000980-01-01-0000980[3][4]

Uyghur Khaganate
3.1[3][4]
1.20
7000208000000000000♠2.08%
000000000800-01-01-0000800[3][4]

Western Jin dynasty
3.1[6]
1.20
7000208000000000000♠2.08%
000000000280-01-01-0000280[6]

Khazar Khanate
3.0[4]
1.16
7000200999999999999♠2.01%
000000000850-01-01-0000850[4]

Sui dynasty
3.0[6]
1.16
7000200999999999999♠2.01%
000000000589-01-01-0000589[6]


document_title: Coulomb

question_text: what is the charge in coulombs of an electron

text: Coulomb

text: Name and notation[edit]

text: This SI unit is named after Charles-Augustin de Coulomb. As with every International System of Units (SI) unit named for a person, the first letter of its symbol is upper case (C). However, when an SI unit is spelled out in English, it should always begin with a lower case letter (coulomb)—except in a situation where any word in that position would be capitalized, such as at the beginning of a sentence or in material using title case. Note that "degree Celsius" conforms to this rule because the "d" is lowercase.— Based on The International System of Units, section 5.2.[2]

text: Definition[edit]

text: The SI system defines the coulomb in terms of the ampere and second: 1 C = 1 A × 1 s.[3] The second is defined in terms of a frequency naturally emitted by caesium atoms.[4] The ampere is defined using Ampère's force law;[5] the definition relies in part on the mass of the international prototype kilogram, a metal cylinder housed in France.[6] In practice, the watt balance is used to measure amperes with the highest possible accuracy.[6]

text: Since the charge of one electron is known to be about 6981160217662079999♠1.6021766208(98)×10−19 C,[7] 1 C can also be considered the charge of roughly 6.241509×10^18 electrons or +1 C the charge of that many positrons or protons, where the number is the reciprocal of 1.602177×10^−19.

text: The proposed redefinition of the ampere and other SI base units would have the effect of fixing the numerical value of the elementary charge to an explicit constant expressed in coulombs, and therefore it would implicitly fix the value of the coulomb when expressed as a multiple of the fundamental charge (the numerical values of those quantities are the multiplicative inverses of each other).

text: SI prefixes[edit]

text:
SI multiples for coulomb (C)

Submultiples

Multiples

Value
SI symbol
Name
Value
SI symbol
Name

10−1 C
dC
decicoulomb
101 C
daC
decacoulomb

10−2 C
cC
centicoulomb
102 C
hC
hectocoulomb

10−3 C
mC
millicoulomb
103 C
kC
kilocoulomb

10−6 C
µC
microcoulomb
106 C
MC
megacoulomb

10−9 C
nC
nanocoulomb
109 C
GC
gigacoulomb

10−12 C
pC
picocoulomb
1012 C
TC
teracoulomb

10−15 C
fC
femtocoulomb
1015 C
PC
petacoulomb

10−18 C
aC
attocoulomb
1018 C
EC
exacoulomb

10−21 C
zC
zeptocoulomb
1021 C
ZC
zettacoulomb

10−24 C
yC
yoctocoulomb
1024 C
YC
yottacoulomb

Common multiples are in bold face.

text: See also SI prefix.

text: Conversions[edit]

text:
One coulomb is the magnitude (absolute value) of electrical charge in 6.24150934(14)×10^18 protons or electrons.[1]
The inverse of this number gives the elementary charge of 6981160217662079999♠1.6021766208(98)×10−19 C.[7]
The magnitude of the electrical charge of one mole of elementary charges (approximately 6.022×1023, or Avogadro's number) is known as a faraday unit of charge (closely related to the Faraday constant). One faraday equals 96485.3399 coulombs. In terms of Avogadro's number (NA), one coulomb is equal to approximately 1.036 × NA×10−5 elementary charges.
One ampere-hour = 3600 C ∴ 1 mA⋅h = 3.6 C.
One statcoulomb (statC), the obsolete CGS electrostatic unit of charge (esu), is approximately 3.3356×10−10 C or about one-third of a nanocoulomb.

text: Relation to elementary charge[edit]

text: The elementary charge, the charge of a proton (equivalently, the negative of the charge of an electron), is approximately 6981160217662079999♠1.6021766208(98)×10−19 C[7]. In SI, the elementary charge in coulombs is an approximate value: no experiment can be infinitely accurate. However, in other unit systems, the elementary charge has an exact value by definition, and other charges are ultimately measured relative to the elementary charge.[8] For example, in conventional electrical units, the values of the Josephson constant KJ and von Klitzing constant RK are exact defined values (written KJ-90 and RK-90), and it follows that the elementary charge e = 2/(KJRK) is also an exact defined value in this unit system.[8] Specifically, e90 = (6991200000000000000♠2×10−9)/(7004258128070000000♠25812.807 × 7005483597900000000♠483597.9) C exactly.[8] SI itself may someday change its definitions in a similar way.[8] For example, one possible proposed redefinition is "the ampere...is [defined] such that the value of the elementary charge e (charge on a proton) is exactly 6981160217648699999♠1.602176487×10−19 coulombs",[9] (in which the numeric value is the 2006 CODATA recommended value, since superseded). This proposal is not yet accepted as part of the SI.

text: In everyday terms[edit]

text:
The charges in static electricity from rubbing materials together are typically a few microcoulombs.[10]
The amount of charge that travels through a lightning bolt is typically around 15 C, although large bolts can be up to 350 C.[11]
The amount of charge that travels through a typical alkaline AA battery from being fully charged to discharged is about 5 kC = 5000 C ≈ 1400 mA⋅h.[12]
The hydraulic analogy uses everyday terms to illustrate movement of charge and the transfer of energy. The analogy equates charge to a volume of water, and voltage to pressure. One coulomb equals (the negative of) the charge of 7018624000000000000♠6.24×1018 electrons. The amount of energy transferred by the flow of 1 coulomb can vary; for example, 300 times fewer electrons flow through a lightning bolt than in the discharge of an AA battery, but the total energy transferred by the flow of the lightning's electrons is 300 million times greater.